SchorschSorry folks, that sounds a little bit like: “We have a customer, but that so ordinary, just another Boeing airplane sold, we saved the paper for the press release.”
We have no information on number and airline. So I rather doubt that the contracts are waterproof at this moment. Possibly we learn in the next days. But it is difficult to really characterize this information: a simple leak, without approval of the company, or a controlled inofficial press release as good news for the shareholders and other customers.
SchorschI didn’t look into it seriously because it is not important. A 720km radius of interception capability at mach 2.35 at 18km vertical altitude for an aircraft obviously makes the Mig-31 unique operationally today. Only a moron would suggest that the aircraft doesn’t use up some fuel taxiiing, taking off, climbing etc, and equally only an idiot would suggest it does all of that at mach 2.35. Of course it has to accelerate and climb and decellerate and descend to land.
Using its sea level climb rate and assuming that stays constant from wheels up to 18km altitude ignores procedures. It is rather more effective to level off at certain heights and gain speed to climb quickly, but you assume that they maintain the same climb rate from takeoff to operating height. Perhaps it is you that doesn’t understand?
Actually the best climb profile is to accelerate to best cruise speed (appr. M0.8 to M0.9) after take-off, than maintain that speed with highest possible climb angle. At a certain altitude (appr. 10km) level off, transfer altitude in speed (= reduce altitude) and brake sound barrier, acclerate to M1.3 or more and start climbing while maintaining that speed. That is what you call “energy level method”.
To Tornado & Speed:
I haven’t considered that problem bzw. I focussed more on today’s scenarios, where aircraft are safest at medium altitude with beaucoup ECM. However, the “modern” wars were fought with high level of supremacy. In a Cold War environment (or Israeli environment) the aircraft have to struggle to hit a target. No time to take out air defence because the enemy is pushing. No situation like in Kosovo or Iraq where own air bases were relatively safe and where no real time problem existed.
Once heard that loss rate for Tornado was anticipated with 10 to 20% for real strike missions. A Buccaneer would have been pray in such situations. At least from the 80s on the battlefield was cramped with ManPADS. In my eyes some attack aircraft would have been bad surprises for their users in that environment.
SchorschBy better avionics it means better situational awareness and weapons accuracy delivery.
The Buccanner is a subsonic attack aircraft while the Tornado can fly at more than twice the speed the Blackburn Buccaneer can
At sea level the Tornado is also faster it`s maximum speed at sea level : 920mph(1,480km/h) while the Balckburn Buccaneer only gets to Mach 0.92(1040km/h)
Speed is of limited importance for most of the flight envelope. We can ask ourself: How much missions will fail with a subsonic aircraft? Actually the reason to deploy the A-7 instead of a supersonic aircraft was the ratio of cost to effectiveness. When it comes to Closa Air Support or repeated interdiction strikes, the supersonic aircraft will suffer the same losses (compare A-7 to F-105). But it costs normally double the price.
The Tornado was built to get the best possible for the job (low-level, short take-off and landing, hard strike). It was built as cold-war weapon and actually the Russian air defence of end 1970 was hardly able to defend against it.
More effective in many missions is an aircraft like the Bucaneer, although it is less sophisticated. Actually I think the Buccaneer is like the A-6 a very sober design and for most missions more effective.
SchorschBy not being coward I mean leading an insurgent campaign against the mightiest military force mankind has ever known. Well, if that ain’t courageous enough…
I will restrain from commenting your excited reactions regarding his death since I feel this is the return to the moral middle age. One man’s heroes are other man’s villains.
*If I were born in Palestine, I would have most likely became a member of some terrorist organization* – Ehud Barak
You know the old story: hostile soldiers who play by the rules and lose the fight are called “brave men” even by their enemies. If the enemy is a tricky guy and really beats you with brain instead of tanks he is often called anything but brave. People are bad loosers.
However, the “loss” of this particular individual must be greeted, especially by the people in Iraq. Finally we can expect that not 400 million USD spy satellite but a 50 USD informant gave the lead. Al-Zargawi lost backing by its own people. First due to insane violence (some moslem people might hate the US, but they still have sense for humanity), second because he increasingly targeted random targets, especially Iraqi people.
good that he is gone. I guess if things carry on it is only a matter of time before the void created by his death is filled.
That is not a must. Possibly something changes. But it will need some change in thinking, especially for USA. I am a little bit optimistic, that at least the amplitude of terror will damp out slightly.
SchorschBy not being coward I mean leading an insurgent campaign against the mightiest military force mankind has ever known. Well, if that ain’t courageous enough…
I will restrain from commenting your excited reactions regarding his death since I feel this is the return to the moral middle age. One man’s heroes are other man’s villains.
*If I were born in Palestine, I would have most likely became a member of some terrorist organization* – Ehud Barak
You know the old story: hostile soldiers who play by the rules and lose the fight are called “brave men” even by their enemies. If the enemy is a tricky guy and really beats you with brain instead of tanks he is often called anything but brave. People are bad loosers.
However, the “loss” of this particular individual must be greeted, especially by the people in Iraq. Finally we can expect that not 400 million USD spy satellite but a 50 USD informant gave the lead. Al-Zargawi lost backing by its own people. First due to insane violence (some moslem people might hate the US, but they still have sense for humanity), second because he increasingly targeted random targets, especially Iraqi people.
good that he is gone. I guess if things carry on it is only a matter of time before the void created by his death is filled.
That is not a must. Possibly something changes. But it will need some change in thinking, especially for USA. I am a little bit optimistic, that at least the amplitude of terror will damp out slightly.
SchorschNow the boot is on the other foot and Boeing are running into Problems with the 787, which are dismissed,by some as nothing , yet when the A380 designers were haveing similar problems ,Airbus was slated and denounced by the very same Pepole :rolleyes:
Some people really unveil their stong bias when one is unable to at least admit that something is going a little bit off track. Anyways, the wise man (especially the financially not-involved man) can lean back, grab his beer, watch the scene and swith to soccer when it gets boring. People run, people fall, people get up just to fall again. I want to see the program that does not run in problems. Theoretically one could assess the costs conservetively, get the budget, adapt the schedule to the challenges and deliver a product on time and date. I always wonder why “managers” fail in “managing” that. On both sides of the ocean.
SchorschTyphoon is most certainly NOT a genuine multi role aircraft. Right now it is a one trick a2a pony with a feeble a2g capability. If and it’s a big if, the partners choose to spend the money, Typhoon MIGHT get better a2g but it won’t be any sooner than JSF’s rolling off the production line.
Which is a software issue in the first place. Do you really think the JSF pops out of his egg as a 100% capable machine? How long did the Raptor need from prototype (YF-22) over prototype (F-22) to “initial serial production” and finally service entry? It needs time.
SchorschWhat? You mean they built an A350 prototype?
Oh, you mean the A380! Stop comparing a program in its final certification stages to one in its mid developmental stage. Two programs launched many years apart for completely different markets and made in completely different ways.
A380 and B787 havemany things in common: High number of risk share partners and involved nationalities (no real novelty for Airbus, but for Boeing), no “old” airline as launch customer, demanding schedule, “modern” design techniques. Some errors and misconceptions made designing the A380 are likely to happen with the B787. The A380 was relatively “bad news”-free until the time of its first flight. That doesn’t have to mean much, but from my internal perspective there were no serious (= extremly concerning) problems in 2004. Most things came apparrent later. Some issues were just expensive or time intensive, some were really serious (= safety and authorties sensitive).
The B787 involves more unvalidated technolgies (something Airbus wanted to avoid for the A380). Unlike other programs Boeing needs to validate some things before the first flight. Probably more bad news to follow.
SchorschThe F-35C will have over 19,000lbs of internal fuel. Now while it might be limited to two AIM-120s internally (unless they figure out a way to wedge more in there) thus lacking some air-to-air punch when “clean” it certainly won’t be restricted in range.
Accepted. But that brings other disadvantages (after all, it’s aviation 😀 ). I guess it will have reduced G-limits when fuly fueled. But that shouldn’t matter too much. When life is at stake, G-limits are no big concern.
SchorschOne can interpret it his way always. Normally only 10% of the real problems really surface. I can tell you, I had good tune on A380 problem channel. Most issues from some month ago are already solved, noone talks about them today. But at the time of their detection they would have made big waves.
Similar things apply for every design. Whoever believes the Boeing releases that B787 runs “without problems” is an idiot. But to believe that they are doomed is stupid, too. At least we learn from that article some areas of concern and we know that the issues are not marginal.
At a time when Boeing has left itself with little margin for error, the wide-ranging series of glitches could create a domino effect if not resolved quickly.
That is the most important quote from the article. Like the A380 program the B787 doesn’t look very robust, the plans are quite optimistic. Some career-happy business people sign responsible for that. these kind of people can be found everywhere, everytime. Simple engineering judgement like “it takes twice the time, cost double the money and finally weights 10% more” is not fancy any more. Funny, that in the end all products take twice the time, cost double the money and finally weight 10% more.
SchorschWhen comparing both types we see often the following arguments:
Eurofighter is “supercruisy”.
JSF is stealthy.
Both have one requirement: be clean! (like when joining the US Marines :diablo: )
(the Eurofighter allows supercruise with a reduced a2a load, maybe even a small drop tank)
But essentially both are pretty lightly loaded. None of them is really in a position to penetrate the others airspace. So the classical BVR (get target (by AWACS), detect, fire missile(s), disengage) would be nearly impossible. Like ‘Aurel’ wrote I must say that in offensive role the JSF wins over Typhoon. The JSF however canot have both: big punch and stealth. If it stays stealthy (=clean), it has a severly restricted operational range, more appropriate to a defensive role.
SchorschA picture to illustrate the drivers of “Cobra”. MiG-29 at ILA 2006
SchorschAs per my simple understanding, the strong vortices on the LERX hold the aircraft straight during the Cobra. The aircraft is still controllable. After the Cobra, the aircraft won’t spin because the breakdown of symmetric flow is prevented. Another type could probably go half way, only to eventually end up as a flaming wreck on the ground.
I’m certainly not saying that the Cobra is the entire function of the LERX but it does help since their shape, size and placement does influence the strength, stability and symmetricity of vortex flow. Everybody already knows the usefulness of vortices at high alpha. The only two aircraft which have done a real Cobra without TVC, both have strength in vortex aerodynamics.
Obviously aurcov has never seen the Fulcrum or Flanker Cobra in real life.
You haven’t seen a video clip of the Flanker doing a Cobra, have you? When you really look at the smoke you see that the air flow over the wing is completely seperated. The LERX has little to nothing to do with the ability to do a Cobra (but right is that it enhances the high-AoA characteristics).
Most important are the (from the stability point of view) the vertical tail plane (and other vertical planes). These are always in clear airstream (look at the Flanker at 90° AoA). Another factor is the “instability” caused by the fuselage. That is lower for “merged” fuselages.
A Cobra is a very “non-linear” manouever, it can work and it can fail even with “conventional” aircraft. But keep in mid: Most important is are the vertical tail planes in clear airstream. No vortex lift beyond 60° AoA.
SchorschThis excellent website http://blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/ compares the Buccaneer to it’s Tornado GR1 replacement here http://blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages1_files/Replacement_Index.html?
Apart from the Tornado’s better avionics the Buccaneer had better performance in all the areas that matter 😮 😀
4 versus 2 Sea Eagles missiles 😎
Although I agree that the Tornado does not represent a big step in performance, actually it is a step back in some areas, the linked website has some doubtful information:
– The Tornado can fly at low level. It does not brake and crack when it flies more than 2h55min in low level. I think the author (due to the presented information I don’t consider him as an aviation expert) has misinterpreted some information.
I give out praise for everybody who can provide me the following information:
– speed with max dry thrust at low level for Tornado GR.1 (=IDS) with 2xECM/Chaff, 2x Fuel, 2x AIM-9 and typical medium drag ordonance (2x HARM or 2x 2.000lb LGB or 4x CBU).
– operational range with same configuration considering high-low-high profile
– maximum sustainable altitude and speed in max dry with that configuration
The Tornado suffers from its versatility and the supersonic performance. The Buccaneer carries most fuel and payload inside giving him much better drag characteristics. The Tornado is generally too small, at least for today’s standards. For the low-level attack against heavily defended targets in a Cold War environment it was best suited.
SchorschHappy Birthday from the Elbe river.
Sign In
